On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:15, LizR wrote:
As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I
follow them, and agree...
On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently,
that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A -> []<>A iff R is symmetrical?
Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R)
respects []A -> [][]A iff R is a transitive?
Bruno
Here's the ones I've done so far. One more to go. Hold off on that
proof (or put a warning in the subject line so I can avoid reading
it).
Brent
> *******************
> Show that
>
> (W, R) respects []A -> A if and only if R is reflexive,
R is reflexive implies (alpha R alpha) for all alpha. []A in alpha
implies A is true in all beta where (alpha R beta), which includes
the case beta=alpha. So R is reflexive implies (W,R) respects []A->A.
I like more words, but I think I follow that and it comes out right.
Assume R is not reflexive. Then there exists at least one world
beta such that (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). Consider a
valuation such that p=f in alpha and p=t in all beta. Then []p is
true in alpha but p is false so []A->A is false in alpha for some
A. R not reflexive implies []A->A is not respected for all alpha
and all valuations.
Yes that seems right, too. Brent obviously has a far more logical
mind than I do, but I guess I already knew that.
> (W, R) respects []A -> [][]A if and only R is transitive,
R is transitive means that for all beta such that (alpha R beta) and
all gamma such that (beta R gamma), (alpha R gamma). So every []A
implies A=t in all beta and also A=t in all gamma. But A=t in all
gamma means []A is true in beta, which in turn means [][]A is true
in alpha. So R is transitive implies (W,R) respects []A->[][]A.
Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and
there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R
gamma)]. Let A=t in beta, A=f in gamma. Then []A is true in alpha
but []A isn't true in beta, so [][]A isn't true in alpha. So (W, R)
respects []A -> [][]A implies R is transitive.
Yes, again, I eventually managed to follow that. You make it seem so
easy.
> (W, R) respects A -> []<>A if and only R is symmetrical,
R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha).
Suppose A is true in alpha; then <>A is true in beta (by symmetry of
R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []<>A in alpha.
Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R
beta) and ~(beta R alpha). So consider V such that A=t in alpha and
A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~<>A in beta.
So it would be false that []<>A in alpha.
Again I an overawed.
> (W,R) respects []A -> <>A if and only if R is ideal,
R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that
(alpha R beta). Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true
in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such
beta, so <>A is true in alpha.
Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha. For alpha
[]A is vacously true for all A, but <>A is false so []A-><>A is false.
Yes.
> (W, R) respects <>A -> ~[]<>A if and only if R is realist.
R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta
such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac. Suppose A is true
in beta, then <>A is true in alpha but <>A=f in beta so []<>A cannot
be true in alpha. Hence <>A->~[]<>A in alpha where alpha is any non
cul-de-sac world. Then consider a cul-de-sac world like beta; <>A
is always false in beta so <>A->X is true in beta for any X,
including ~[]<>A.
I think my brain is starting to melt down, I can't work out if that
proves "if and only if" ?
By the way why "realist" ?
By lack of imagination of my part. The idea that is that "we can die
at each instant (in each "world")" looks realist. " <>A -> ~[]<>A i
the main axiom of the "smallest theory of life/intelligence".
OK, Liz, but sometimes you say "it seems correct". You should perhaps
try to convince your son, or Charles, to develop the confidence.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
